ELLIS, Kan. - The marriage controversy is not new - not simply a controversy, but a battle. The issue is framed in such an "either-or" way that the public is tricked into taking positions that are neither kind nor logical. A commentator on NPR mentioned the other night that President Obama could see a case for a strong civil union arrangement for same-sex partners, but was having trouble coming to terms with the idea of same-sex marriages. So, even the president has fallen for the "straw man" tactic.

The solution has been available all the time the battle here in the United States has been raging. Civil governments should not be in the marriage business at all. Marriage is a religious matter. If a church, or denomination, or other religious body finds that applicants meet that religious body's criteria for marriage, then let that religious body marry the applicants according to its own rites and procedures. Marriage, as such, should have a moral, religious, even sentimental standing, but not a legal standing.

HAYS, Kan. - William Herzog's slim volume, Parables As Subversive Speech: Jesus as Pedagogue of the Oppressed (Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), is deceptively heavy in concept at points, and deceptively heavy in implications.

At first glance, a treatment of the parables of Jesus would seem to be of interest only to Christian persons of theological inclination. Of course it would be of interest to that sector, at least to those who are willing to ponder an alternative understanding of Jesus' meaning in certain parables and, by extension, an alternative understanding of what Jesus was about in his earthly ministry. The volume might be also of interest to Jews and Muslims, the other two "religions of The Book." They might be interested to know that the Christianity that has impacted them is not the Christianity that might have been, or the Christianity that might come to be.

HAYS, Kan. - My father was a Republican. He was conscientious in his party affiliation, conscientious in forming political opinions, conscientious in the use of the language, and, when the chips were down, conscientious in a few other areas. Here is my father's understanding (in my words) of the core philosophy of the Republican Party, as compared to his understanding of the core philosophy of the Democratic Party.

My father understood that, when the Republican Party succeeded in electing candidates to public office, they were elected because of their proven ability, their history of reliability, their education, a specific background that had prepared them for this particular office, and their dedication to the public good, which called them to set aside their successful private pursuits to accept a term in public office. Once in office, the Republican incumbents were to use their very best judgment in acting upon those matters that came officially before them.

HAYS, Kan. - On the day before Thanksgiving, on NPR, we heard an abundance of commentary on the Transportation Safety Agency's "full-body scans" and "enhanced pat-down procedures" for passengers boarding scheduled airline flights. One of the critical remarks made was that the movement "...had no center." I took this to mean that the speaker thought a movement could not be effective if it were not orchestrated or choreographed by some sort of central entity. I took his words to mean that participants in a resistance movement had to be mere instruments of the central entity and that the role of ordinary participants is only to act in "lock-step" as extensions of that central consciousness. Not only do I disagree, but I firmly submit that spontaneous movements, in which each participant acts according to his or her own understanding, inspiration, and conscience, are the most effective movements. It appears now, as I write on Thanksgiving Day, that the threat of mass refusal to accept the full-body scan fizzled. On the other hand, as a result of this expression of spontaneous resistance, it appears that the government has stated an intent to re-evaluate security techniques and procedures. In any case, the issue has reminded me that spontaneous resistance movements are worthy of examination and discussion.

HAYS, Kan. - Article Four of The Kansas Bill of Rights, Constitution of the State of Kansas: § 4. Bear arms; armies. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Constitutional Amendment Question Number One, Ellis County General Election Sample Ballot: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

Excerpt from the Explanatory Statement provided by the Sample Ballot: "...A vote against this amendment would provide for no constitutional right of a person to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for any other lawful purpose..."

US Constitution, Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed..

The above references are necessary to the commentary I feel compelled to provide.

HAYS, Kan. - A former commander, under whom I served in 1973 and 1974, has become, over the years, a very good friend. The bond is secured by the fact that we shared a friend, now deceased, of "best friend" stature to both of us. Colonel P____ and I correspond frequently. In a recent message to him, I reminisced as to how indebted I am to him for certain actions he took on my behalf prior to my departure from his command in Korea. He replied to the effect that no one is "indebted" to someone for simply doing his duty. He stated, in effect, that his two major interventions on my behalf, thirty-six years ago were warranted and deserved, that it was his duty to intervene, and that not only I, but the Army, benefited.

HAYS, Kan. - My most recent essay dealt with the problem of disseminating or forwarding false, inflammatory, and slanderous materials. Most of the feedback I received was quite positive, except for a note from one very good friend, who suggested that I give equal attention to the similar offenses from "liberal" sources. His idea, I think, was that, in writing of the abuses of truth and civility in the disseminations and fowardings I described, I was criticizing conservatives.

ELLIS, Kan. - First, I would like to clearly state my premise and reason for writing this piece. I believe it is always irresponsible to forward, publish, or publicly declare material that one knows to be malicious, false, and inflammatory. I further believe that it is also irresponsible to disseminate material that is inflammatory, even if the specific facts contained therein are technically correct, if by omission of some facts and over-emphasis of others, there is clear intent to arouse others to unjustified anger and potentially unjust action. I believe that a weak "small print" disclaimer accompanying such dissemination does not relieve one of responsibility.

A few years ago, at a Memorial Day observance at the Hays, Kansas, VFW, a local dignitary presented a "keynote" speech, in which he declared that we (the United States) had been "at war with Islam" for, at that time, 33 years. He cited a litany of events over the 33 years to "prove" his point.

HAYS, Kan. - I'll paraphrase the opening lines of Tolstoy's Anna Karenina, "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." Good drivers everywhere are pretty much all alike; every place has its own kind of bad driver.

In Hays, Kansas, a very high percentage of drivers use no turn signals at all. (Perhaps this is to increase the resale value of the vehicle. "See, the spare tire has never been used, and neither has the turn signal!") Other drivers activate the turn signal when the turn has begun. A few drivers signal their intentions by activating the appropriate turn signal well before the intended turn, then actually turn. Still other drivers signal a turn, and then do not. (It is hard to erase a signal already given. There is no button for that, even in the fanciest new cars. Maybe that explains the drivers who give no signal at all. They want to preserve their options.)

HAYS, Kan. - My internal clock tells me that it is time for my almost-annual, semi-curmudgeonly Christmas essay.

There has been the usual tsunami of "Christian-Right" protest items in the newspapers and in e-mail forwardings regarding the secularization of Christmas, the "Happy Holidays" trend (versus "Merry Christmas"), and the like. This wave washes strongly across the High Plains of western Kansas, but I suspect few regions of the U.S. of A. are spared. Perhaps surprisingly, I find myself somewhat in agreement with the "Christian-Right" on this.

It is true that no one has the least idea what day of the year is the true anniversary of the birth of Jesus. The Church designated a day for the celebration, which is reasonable enough, and shrewdly placed it to co-opt the pagan celebration of the Winter Solstice. One can't blame the Church for being shrewd. If Darwinian principles apply to organizations, there is survival value in shrewdness.